For the record, I too would like nice architecturally aesthetic buildings. I just would like some height variations here and there, especially the ones rising well over 700'. Or to put it in the same analogy, I certainly would rather date Blake Griffin, 6'10" over Tom Cruise, 5,7"... if I were gay of course. I mean, he's younger, more athletic... need I say more?

Alright I'm gonna go look at some sports illustrated swimsuit edition to get rid of these mental images I've created for myself.

For the record, I too would like nice architecturally aesthetic buildings. I just would like some height variations here and there, especially the ones rising well over 700'. Or to put it in the same analogy, I certainly would rather date Blake Griffin, 6'10" over Tom Cruise, 5,7"... if I were gay of course.

Im talking about that building being 700 feet not a Hamton Inn. As far as it stands now, you won't even be able to see the building from the south due to Ashton, unlikely you'll be able to see it much at all from I-35. Should be able to see it from the west, but not coming in on 35 in either direction. It will be nothing more than infill, contributing little to the skyline and lost amongst other buildings. Again that site deserves a much taller tower.

If there is going to be a 1,000 sf (or even 800 sf) building in the next 10-15 years, it will be apartments, condos or mixed use. There won't be a strictly office building that tall in Austin in the near future. Unless Perry is successful in bringing some of those California companies to Austin, our office market is too small to support it at this stage. Even Stacy's proposed Gumby building was only about 30% office.

The broker gossip is that 3rd & Colorado has 2 leases pending, but both of those pending leases will automatically cancel in April if they can't get another lease committed and bring the building to their proforma'd preleasing to start construction. So, if the building doesn't start by the end of April, it will probably be put on hold indefinitely. Once word gets out that a developer can't meet a deadline, the project becomes tainted and no one wants to commit to a lease. And then, generally, your equity bails on you. No money means no building. You either hold the land and eat the carrying costs hoping to restart it in the future with new investors, or you flip the land to the next guy. Which wouldn't be a bad thing because maybe the next guy can deliver? I guess we'll see in April if the rumors are true.

If there is going to be a 1,000 sf (or even 800 sf) building in the next 10-15 years, it will be apartments, condos or mixed use. There won't be a strictly office building that tall in Austin in the near future. Unless Perry is successful in bringing some of those California companies to Austin, our office market is too small to support it at this stage. Even Stacy's proposed Gumby building was only about 30% office.

The broker gossip is that 3rd & Colorado has 2 leases pending, but both of those pending leases will automatically cancel in April if they can't get another lease committed and bring the building to their proforma'd preleasing to start construction. So, if the building doesn't start by the end of April, it will probably be put on hold indefinitely. Once word gets out that a developer can't meet a deadline, the project becomes tainted and no one wants to commit to a lease. And then, generally, your equity bails on you. No money means no building. You either hold the land and eat the carrying costs hoping to restart it in the future with new investors, or you flip the land to the next guy. Which wouldn't be a bad thing because maybe the next guy can deliver? I guess we'll see in April if the rumors are true.

That kind of sucks, if true. I am excited by this building. I think it is well designed and will look good at street level. It will house well paid workers who may opt to live in or near downtown. It will certainly add to the credibility factor for downtown Austin as THE place to do business in this area. I am not so concerned about the height, but I am not a skyscraper fanatic. I like really tall buildings when they add something at street level. A lot of the tall buildings I see in other cities with their big street level plazas and gale force downdrafts, are kind of energy drains on the nearby streets. I like to look at impressive skylines from afar, but sometimes I am most struck by the bulk of a skyline just as much as I am by the sight of some really tall buildings poking up or standing alone.

For the record, I too would like nice architecturally aesthetic buildings. I just would like some height variations here and there, especially the ones rising well over 700'. Or to put it in the same analogy, I certainly would rather date Blake Griffin, 6'10" over Tom Cruise, 5,7"... if I were gay of course. I mean, he's younger, more athletic... need I say more?

Alright I'm gonna go look at some sports illustrated swimsuit edition to get rid of these mental images I've created for myself.

Bud, you obviously aren't gay, because if you are, your taste in men is questionable at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

If there is going to be a 1,000 sf (or even 800 sf) building in the next 10-15 years, it will be apartments, condos or mixed use. There won't be a strictly office building that tall in Austin in the near future. Unless Perry is successful in bringing some of those California companies to Austin, our office market is too small to support it at this stage. Even Stacy's proposed Gumby building was only about 30% office.

It's also worth considering that those Cali tech companies tend to prefer a campus along the lines of Dell in Round Rock as opposed to the JPMorgan Chase Tower in Houston. Those aren't necessarily the companies to court if you're looking to outfit a tall office building...but people seem to love living in the sky. Huh, how funny, I just had a thought. It seems our desires have reversed. We've gone from wanting to work in a tall building and live on the ground...to wanting to live in a tall building a work on the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1

That kind of sucks, if true. I am excited by this building. I think it is well designed and will look good at street level. It will house well paid workers who may opt to live in or near downtown. It will certainly add to the credibility factor for downtown Austin as THE place to do business in this area. I am not so concerned about the height, but I am not a skyscraper fanatic. I like really tall buildings when they add something at street level. A lot of the tall buildings I see in other cities with their big street level plazas and gale force downdrafts, are kind of energy drains on the nearby streets. I like to look at impressive skylines from afar, but sometimes I am most struck by the bulk of a skyline just as much as I am by the sight of some really tall buildings poking up or standing alone.

I like the points you've made here. What I love about Austin is it's unconventional marriage of tall towers with human-scaled low-rise and street-level development. Even the newer developments make an effort to meet the street gracefully. I love tall buildings, having spent so much time in Manhattan and Chicago, but nothing warms my heart like a lively, active street. I think I already said recently on this thread, but tall buildings do not (necessarily) a city make.

__________________"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

It's also worth considering that those Cali tech companies tend to prefer a campus along the lines of Dell in Round Rock as opposed to the JPMorgan Chase Tower in Houston. Those aren't necessarily the companies to court if you're looking to outfit a tall office building...but people seem to love living in the sky. Huh, how funny, I just had a thought. It seems our desires have reversed. We've gone from wanting to work in a tall building and live on the ground...to wanting to live in a tall building a work on the ground.

I agree that this is generally true for CA tech companies who want a huge campus, but you're forgetting about the tech companies that want to attract hip, cool employees (the ones who can afford to live high in the sky) and use a downtown address to do it - Silicon Labs, Cirrus Logic, Facebook and Google all chose to either buy, build or lease downtown office space in Austin specifically to attract a certain type of employee. It would have been much cheaper for them to be in the 'burbs, but they chose downtown Austin for the cool factor.

I can't believe a whole page has been taken up talking about Blake Griffin, Tom Cruise, and Herman Munster. Sheesh, y'all.

Anyway, what's the consensus on the design of this building? Sure, it's only 27 floors, is about 20 less than I'd like, but do you like that the exterior is almost entirely glass? Is it going to clash with anything? Will it look dated in ten years?

It's already dated. The design is awful. I prefer more symmetric designs than haphazard mish-mash. And its too squat. My problem with the height is not necessarily that it is too short, but that the height is not proportionate to its girth. I like more slender towers.

I can't believe a whole page has been taken up talking about Blake Griffin, Tom Cruise, and Herman Munster. Sheesh, y'all.

Anyway, what's the consensus on the design of this building? Sure, it's only 27 floors, is about 20 less than I'd like, but do you like that the exterior is almost entirely glass? Is it going to clash with anything? Will it look dated in ten years?

To much homogeny in this city - every other building is a tan and brown largely masonry mid-rise. A little glass here and there is good - IMHO

I can't believe a whole page has been taken up talking about Blake Griffin, Tom Cruise, and Herman Munster. Sheesh, y'all.

Anyway, what's the consensus on the design of this building? Sure, it's only 27 floors, is about 20 less than I'd like, but do you like that the exterior is almost entirely glass? Is it going to clash with anything? Will it look dated in ten years?

I like the design, although I too would like it better at perhaps 35 to 40 floors. Its glass exterior will blend in well with Frost and the Austonian and reflect some light during the day. As always lately, it appears the economy is dictating the designs, shorter and wider instead of taller and more slender, but at least it looks like the exterior doesn't look too compromised for the sake of keeping the costs down.
BTW, everything will look dated in ten years if we can ever get an architectural masterpiece built dt.

It also included the lengths/widths. I'm thinking this tower won't be too bulky. It's no more bulky than Frost Bank Tower. Even The Austonian is about that wide north to south. And 3rd & Colorado will still be much more slim than One American Center, One Congress Plaza, the Hilton and the Omni, which are easily our bulkiest buildings. The Omni for instance covers an area that is roughly 275x275 feet. And Congress Plaza is 296 feet wide at its base.